WobblyStroke said:

...multi joint movement is an immaculately coordinated blending of repeatable forces and contractions.

Click to expand...

But we can't effectively control single joint movement? Doesn't compute for me.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

How does moving the elbow do all that? "It's more natural" doesn't explain it for me.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

As I said, you can take a full course or two on this and not fully get it. Movement is very complex. This is why it is relatively easy to program a computer to think like a human, but we are a long way off from programming a robot to move like a human.

The point isn't that the elbow moves. It's that multi joint movement is an immaculately coordinated blending of repeatable forces and contractions. This is how it works in all vertabrates and has done so for millions of years. Overriding that and instructing the body to fire this muscle and then that one will never be able to compete with how your body would figure out how to efficiently make a desired action.

The prefrontal cortex has veto power so if you say to yourself 'only use elbow flexors' your arm will listen to you. If you instead intend to move the tip of the cue at some desired speed without a care for how, the body (your subconscious) will use all the tools at it's desposal to make that happen. Without a shadow of a doubt, it will do a better job than you bossing the arm around.

So as I said, "stroking should be left to the subconscious" is currently the best advice we've got.

Pocket size should be a spec.

Ok, I’ll try to clean these pads Thanks

WobblyStroke said:

("Multi-joint" strokes) are more in line with how we are designed to move and how we are wired to organize movement. They provide effortless power and a level of fine force control (speed control) that cannot be matched by primarily contraction driven movement. Not to mention the fact that they hold up incredibly well under pressure. They are in a word, better.

Click to expand...

How does moving the elbow do all that? "It's more natural" doesn't explain it for me.

pj
chgo

Here's the latest:

AZB Users Who Have Taken the BU Playing-Ability Exams (with top scores to date):

BU Exam Scores (I + II), III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII - User - Table Size, corner pocket mouth, throat, shelf - Video Links

186 (92 + D:94), , , 100, , 75, 96 - kanzzo - 9', 4 1/4", 3 5/8'', 1'' - Exam I, Exam II, Exam V, Exam VII, Exam VIII
182 (91 + D:91) - Side Pocket - 10', 4 7/8", 3 7/8", 1 1/2" - Exam I, Exam II
181 (93 + D:88), 52, 93, 100, , 75, 84 - dr_dave - 9', 5", 4 1/8", 1 1/2" - Exam I, Exam II, Exam III, Exam IV, Exam V, Exam VII, Exam VIII
178 (91 + D:87) - Ken Cileli - 9', 4 3/4", 4 1/8", 1 1/2" - Exam I, Exam II
170 (83 + D:87) - Marc Vidal Claramunt - 9', 4 1/8", 3 5/16", 1" - Exam I, Exam II
168 (80 + D:88) - Gerry Williams - 9', 4 1/2", 4", 1 7/8" - Exam I (part 1, part 2), Exam II (part 1, part 2, part 3)
164 (84 + D:80) - theUBC - 9', 4 1/2", 4 1/8", 1 3/4" - Exam I, Exam II
164 (79 + D:85) - Mark Gray (1st attempt) - 9', 4 1/2", 4 1/2", 1 1/2" - Exam I, Exam II
161 (84 + D:77) - Shane Van Boening (1st attempt) - 9', 5", 3 7/8", 1 3/8" - Exam I, Exam II
161* (88 + M:73) - dr_dave - 8', 4 3/4", 4 1/8", 1 3/8" - Exam I, Exam II
160 (79 + D:81) - scottjen26 - 9', 4 1/2", 3 7/8", 1 1/2" - Exam I (part 1, part 2), Exam II (part 1, part 2, part 3)
157* (88 + M:69) - Neil - 7', 4 1/8", 2 7/8", 1 3/8" - Exam I (part 1, part 2), Exam II (part 1, part 2)
153 (82 + D:71), 45 - peppersauce - 9', 4 1/4", 3 7/8", 1 1/4" - Exam I, Exam II, Exam III
148 (75 + D:73) - JeremiahGage - 9', 5", 4 1/8", 1 1/2" - Exam I, Exam II
146 (74 + D:72), 49, 89, 94 - td873 - 9', 4.5", 3.75", 1.625" - Exam I, Exam II, Exam III, Exam IV, Exam V
146 (72 + D:74) - djkx1 - 9', 4 3/4" , 3 5/8" , 1 1/2"
144* (82 + M:62) - bowiebill - 7', 4 1/2", 4", 1 1/2" - Exam I, Exam II
144 (69 + M:75) - kanzzo - 9', 4 1/4", 3 5/8", 1" - Exam I, Exam II
141 (70 + D:71) - 12squared - 9', 4 7/8", 4 1/8", 1 1/2"
135* (71 + M:64) - Mooneye - 7', 4 7/8", 4 1/8", 1 5/8" - Exam I, Exam II
132* (76 + M:56) - BRussell - 8', 5", 4 1/4", 1 1/2" - Exam I, Exam II
130 (64 + M:66) - sjharr - 9'
130 (63 + M:67) - StraightPoolIU - 9', 4 7/8", 4 1/8, 1 1/4"
129 (69 + M:60) - Spimp13 - 9'
128 (64 + M:64) - PocketPooler - 9', 4 3/8", 3 5/8", 1 1/2" - Exam I (part 1, part 2), Exam II (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4)
127 (67 + M:60) - Okie - 9', 4 3/4", 4", 1 1/2"
124 (71 + M:53) - StraightPoolIU - 9', 4 7/8", 4 1/8, 1 1/4"
124 (64 + M:60) - JC - 9', 4 7/16", 3 7/8", 1 3/8" - Exam I, Exam II
121* (63 + M:58) - TheOneGnat - 8', 4 1/2", 4", 1 5/8"
117 (53 + M:58) - RobMan - 9', 5", 4 1/4", 1 1/5"
114 (55 + M:59) - cleary - 9', 4 1/2", 3 7/8", 2" - Exam I, Exam II
113 (? + M:?) - Eagleshot - 9', 4 1/2, 4", 1 1/4" - PM
112* (61 + M:51) - gregcantrall - 8', 4 3/8", 4 1/8", 1"
111 (63 + M:48) - denwhit - 9', 4 5/8", 4 3/8", 1 1/4" - PM
111* (63+ M:48) - kling&allen - 7', 5", 4 1/2", 1 5/8" - Exam I, Exam II
110* (62 + M:48) - caff3in3 - 8'
108 (59 + M:49) - row21097 - 9', 4 1/2”, 4”, 1 1/2” - Exam I (part 1, part 2, part 3), Exam II (part 1, part 2, part 3)
108* (61 + M:47) - JFire - 7', 5", 4 1/8", 1 5/8"
106 (53 + M:53) - StraightPoolIU - 9', 4 7/8", 4 1/8, 1 1/4"
101 (49 + B:52) - kanzzo - 9', 4 1/4", 3 5/8", 1" - Exam I, Exam II
101* (59 + M:42) - 67tbird - 8', 4 1/4", 4", 1 1/2"
94 (57 + M:37) - BeiberLvr - 9'
92* (59 + M:33) - JFire - 7', 5", 4 1/8", 1 5/8"
91* (62 + M:29) - SeanChamp - 8', 4 1/2", 1 1/2"
90 (? + M:?) - EagleEye - 9', 5", 3 7/8", 1 3/8"
89 (56 + M:33) - mamics - 9', 4 5/8", 3 13/16", 1 1/4"
88 (? + B:?) - DrGonzo - 9', 4.5", 4", 1.5"
87 (49 + B:38), 30 - iusedtoberich - 9', 5 1/8", 4 1/8", 1 1/2" - Exam I, Exam II, Exam III
82 (57 + B:25) - krupa - 9', 4 3/4", 3 5/8", 1 1/4"
68 (35 + B:33) - icucybe - 9', 4 1/2", 3 /1/2", 1 3/4"
68 (44 + B:24) - pleforowicz - 9', 11.7cm, 9.2cm, 3.8cm
63 (41 + B:22) - SamLambert - 9' - Exams I and II

*: not on a 9' or larger table

NOTE - Other scores and videos can be found on the BU Alumni page (official BU graduates) and the BU Exam Challenge pages.

I just posted a 75 on BU Exam VII:

dr_dave said:

FYI, there at 10 money spots available, and only 4 people have participated to date. It would be sad if money goes unclaimed. For the current standings and for info on how to participate, see: $3,000 Billiard University (BU) Draw/Follow Challenge.

FYI, there is an advantage to locking in scores early since a tie goes to the first person who posted.

Click to expand...

I just posted a 75 in the Draw Matrix Drill:

Shooter1 said:

No, I have not played any BCA for 3 years, no BCA reported tourneys, nothing. My robustness has remained the same obviously since I have not played in BCA.

Click to expand...

I’m curious as to where you are, because you use “BCA” as synonymous with “reporting to Fargo”, which is not at all the way I’ve ever seen it.

In my area (Ontario Canada) BCA would only refer to BCA league or maybe a BCA league tournament. Most tournaments report to Fargo but no one considers them to be “BCA”.

42 today. I may post the video later. Typically just do that on runs of 50 or more, but I was pretty proud of how I kept it going and I know I played one not typical breakshot. I am going save it I think and watch it, so may post it.

I personally like Mike Sigel commentating on straight pool matches. He provides good insight.

Patrick Johnson said:

Oops, sorry - but my opinion of how a pendulum stroke works best is unchanged.


Which are the "multi joints" that you think should be involved? Why?

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of 'shoulds'. For fhe all time greats I mentioned--Earl, SVB, Mika, Efren, Busty--and many other phenomenal cueists including Ronnie O'Sullivam, all joints of the arm ARE involved.

My contention is that these are not strokes that are full of flaws that have been overcome by countless hours of practice, like peddlers of "THE fundamentals" sometimes claim, but that they are in fact better. They are more in line with how we are designed to move and how we are wired to organize movement. They provide effortless power and a level of fine force control (speed control) that cannot be matched by primarily contraction driven movement. Not to mention the fact that they hold up incredibly well under pressure. They are in a word, better.

It is no surprise at all, then, that many of the greatest to ever swing a cue, play these types of strokes. What is somewhat shocking however, is how many instructors still go around calling them flawed simply because they don't fit into their neat models better suited to robots.

We are not robots, we're better. So are these strokes.

@jtompilot Here is the bracket they used brackelope...:
http://live.brackelope.com/t/e2zj8/